DOCSLIB.ORG

Summary Proceedings 5Th International Marine Debris Conference

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Summary Proceedings 5th International Marine Debris Conference 20-25 March 2011 Honolulu, HI, USA CONFERENCE PARTNERS $35,000+ NOAA Marine Debris Division NOAA Fisheries International Affairs LEAD CONFERENCE SPONSOR $25,000+ NOAA Pacific Services Center NOAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program CONFERENCE SPONSOR $10,000+ NOAA Office of Response and Restoration NOAA Pacific Region NOAA Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument EXHIBIT SPONSOR $5,000+ Chamber of Shipping of America CONFERENCE CONTRIBUTOR $2,500+ Oceanic Society Expeditions CONFERENCE SUPPORTER $1,000+ Kona Brewing Company Outrigger Enterprises Group Design Asylum, Inc. Kuloko Arts of Hawai‘i Society of the Plastics Industry EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fifth International Marine Debris Conference (5IMDC) held in Honolulu, Hawaii, was a resounding success, bringing together over 450 people from all over the world to discuss the persistent problem of marine debris in our world’s oceans. The conference was organized in record time, but you wouldn’t have known it by the participation and enthusiasm levels and for that we, the organizers, thank everyone who contributed, participated, followed us on Twitter or Facebook, or is reading these summary proceedings. We are all looking for ways to apply the information that was exchanged, address new issues that were raised or old issues that were revisited, and are now ready to make a difference in addressing marine debris. As you might imagine, the following summary of proceedings could never be exhaustive and we apologize in advance if your conference highlight is not adequately covered. The dialogue that occurred between participants during the sessions, breaks, receptions, workshops, and field trips was extensive and allowed for an exchange of ideas that we are sure will lead to new projects and new efforts to address marine debris, as well as a reinvigoration of continuous activities. We hope this summary will serve as a reminder of the energy and enthusiasm from the conference and look forward to seeing what the future holds. Importantly, we look forward to working with new and old partners to implement the Honolulu Commitment, the Honolulu Strategy and protect the oceans for future generations. Conference organizers CONCLUSIONS Overarching Conclusions The 5th International Marine Debris Conference brought together a wide array of participants (over 450) from government, industry, academia and civil society, as well as individual citizens who were passionate about finding lasting solutions to the problem of marine debris. It involved 45 sessions with 213 presentations, 5 panels, and 65 posters on issues ranging from the role of government, industry and consumer choice in preventing marine debris to community led coastal cleanups. Several sessions focused on the latest research in the field of marine debris and illustrated that the problem is pervasive, impacting all ocean areas. Collectively, these sessions and the numerous plenary speakers highlighted the complexity of the marine debris challenge facing the international community. Many speakers highlighted the challenges surrounding the presence of plastics in the marine environment. Importantly, the conference drew attention to the detrimental and cascading impacts of debris to marine ecosystems and their biodiversity. However, despite the scale and complexity of the challenge facing the international community, the overall tone and spirit of the conference was one of optimism. A key conclusion and message of the conference was that marine debris is preventable. What is needed is a closer and more coordinated working relationship between governments, industry, researchers, civil society and the general public to tackle the problem of marine debris at its source, whether that be from land or sea-based activities. This optimism and need for cooperation was able to be captured and reflected in one of the major conference outcomes, the Honolulu Commitment. The Commitment is a call to action, encouraging all stakeholders to take responsibility for their contribution and find solutions to the marine debris problem. It invites us to make choices that reduce waste and to actively participate in a global network of stakeholders committed to understanding, preventing, reducing, and managing marine debris in an environmentally sustainable manner. Finally, the theme of the conference was Waves of Change: global lessons to inspire local action. There were many aspects to this theme, but perhaps the most important was that captured in the word “inspire.” Flanked by music and art inspired by the marine debris challenge, the conference participants dialogued, they agreed and disagreed, they brainstormed, they networked, and they celebrated. New ideas were generated and new partnerships were built. They left inspired. Plenary sessions were held throughout the conference to set the scene for each day’s discussions. Prominent and inspiring personalities shared their experiences and thoughts on marine debris related issues. 4 Rapporteur Reports Experts from around the world volunteered to be conference rapporteurs and were put into working groups to participate in and report out on session presentations that were conducted in three thematic areas – land and sea-based sources of marine debris and removal of accumulated marine debris. Their goal was to collect key pieces of information from the different presentations that would help to address the sources of marine debris and how best to remove existing debris from the world’s oceans. These parts were then pulled together through summary reports and are included below. Rapporteur Team Report – Prevention, reduction and management of land-based sources of marine debris Lead Rapporteurs: Chris Corbin/UNEP-CEP, Seba Sheavly/Sheavly Consultants, Katherine Weiler/ EPA-OCPD Assistant Rapporteurs: Arwen Edsall/NOAA Ashley Carlson/American Chemistry Council Christine Flowers/Keep CA Beautiful Katie Register/Clean VA Waterways Land-based-sources of marine debris are preventable; however, solutions will require a closer working relationship between governments, NGOs, industry, and the general public to promote source reduction, increase prevention efforts and improve solid waste management practices. There was a strong sentiment at the 5th International Marine Debris Conference that one must not reinvent the wheel in future actions. Similar methodologies, research, and efforts are being used with varying degrees of success and there is now an urgent need to share these experiences through more effective communications. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be promoted worldwide and adapted to suit local circumstances as “one size does not fit all.” There is a further need to tackle marine debris through a careful priority-setting process of key issues and concerns. This may require an initial focus on the “low hanging fruit” or “path of least resistance” through development of expedient, opportunistic, and strategic partnerships. At the same time, efforts must focus on interventions which will have the largest impacts in terms of improvement to the environ- ment and human health - “biggest bang for the buck.” It is important not to try to tackle all types, sizes, vectors, and sources of marine debris simultaneously. Progress There are numerous, successful examples of BMPs and activities that address the prevention, reduction and management of marine debris from land-based sources and activities. It was highlighted that many of these are not universal, with differences in approaches depending on size, socio-economic conditions, and cultures. Many developing countries and small island developing states (SIDS), in particular, experience deficiencies in basic solid waste management services, lack of enforcement of existing laws 5 and regulations, public apathy, and limited technological options for improving solid waste management. It was reported that there was added value in linking marine debris activities with other high-profile projects and activities such as the use of marine protected area (MPA) management frameworks, energy efficiency, and local community-based projects with revenue earning or job opportunity components such as “green” jobs. Progress has been made in both developed and developing countries to: • Increase cost-recovery for provision of solid waste management services through fees for pick- up (residential and/or commercial), free or reduced fees for recycling pick-up, and fines for not recycling; • Use volunteer/stewardship programs, involve private sector, and focus on schools from the earliest level – infant and primary; • Increase linkages of marine debris with “waste to energy” or “waste to fuel” recovery opportunities and climate change mitigation; • Link messages on marine debris with broader waste management concerns and highlight the negative impacts on human health and important economic sectors such as fishing and tourism; • Empower consumers and the general public to make more informed and responsible choices through provision of information related to solid waste, plastics, marine debris, and their impacts; • Develop partnerships among stakeholders including industry, academia, NGOs, government, and regional and international organizations. These partnerships have enabled leveraging of funding support and technical expertise; and • Increase use of social media and the Internet to spread messages on marine debris prevention Despite this progress in a few select countries, much more needs to be done locally, nationally,
Recommended publications
  • Mineral Waste

    Mineral Waste

    Copyright © 2012 SAGE Publications. Not for sale, reproduction, or distribution. Mineral Waste 553 ity for many local governments in the early 21st cen- Water; Public Health; Residential Urban Refuse; Toxic tury, and this has led to budget cuts in public ser- Wastes; Waste Management, Inc. vices. In some places, this means less funding for waste management, which has led to policies like Further Readings twice-per-month garbage collection. Other finan- Environmental Protection Agency. “Illegal Dumping cially strapped places do not offer convenient loca- Prevention Guidebook.” http://www.epa.gov/wastes/ tions for disposal. Perhaps the most problematic conserve/tools/payt/pdf/illegal.pdf (Accessed July for residents are locations that charge high fees for 2010). waste disposal and recycling programs. In tough “Nonprofit Agencies Shoulder Burden of Illegal economic times, there is often not enough money Dumping.” Register-Guard (Eugene) (June 3, 2003). in the household budget to make ends meet, much Sigman, Hillary. “Midnight Dumping: Public Policies less to afford these garbage costs. This is especially and Illegal Disposal of Used Oil.” RAND true for low-income residents. These segments Journal of Economics, v.29/1 (1998). of the population often resort to more economi- cally viable measures, like midnight dumping, in order to dispose of their waste. There also tend to be higher crime rates in these areas, which law Mineral Waste enforcement gives a much higher priority than ille- gal dumping. Consequently, midnight dumping Mineral waste is the solid, liquid, and airborne by- goes unchecked. products of mining and mineral concentration pro- cesses. Although mining and metallurgy are ancient Solutions arts, the Industrial Revolution launched an accel- As a way to curb illegal dumping activity, the erating global demand for minerals that has made Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has sug- waste generation and disposal modern industry’s gested implementing “pay-as-you-throw” (PAYT) most severe environmental and social challenge.
  • Pay As You Throw

    Pay As You Throw

    FEATURE By Lisa Skumatz, economist and environmental/recycling/energy consultant, Town of Superior trustee and CML Executive Board member pay AS YOU THROW PAY AS YOU THROW is a trash rate put out more garbage – usually • Manual or automated collection strategy that charges households a measured either by the can or bag of trucks; higher bill for putting out more trash for garbage. Paying by volume (like paying • Wheelie or other types of containers; collection. Sounds fair — fee for service, for electricity, water, groceries, etc.) just as households are charged a higher provides households with an incentive • Urban (Boulder), suburban bill for using more water, electricity, etc. to recycle more and reduce disposal. (Lafayette) and small/rural areas (Aspen, Boulder County); and More than 7,000 (25 percent) of Communities have been implementing communities nationwide agree PAYT trash rate incentives in earnest • Set up by ordinance (Boulder and use some form of PAYT. since the late 1980s. The programs can County, Fort Collins), by contract The U.S. Environmental Protection provide a cost-effective method of (Lafayette) or city-run (Loveland). Agency Region 8 hopes to help more reducing landfill disposal, increasing How PAYT works Colorado cities and towns adopt PAYT recycling and improving equity, among The most common types of PAYT with a new program, offering free other effects. systems are: workshops, a dedicated Web site Experience in these 7,000 communities • Variable can or subscribed can (www.paytwest.org) and free consulting – including some right here in Colorado programs ask households to sign up for interested communities. – shows that these systems work very for a specific number of containers PAYT (also called variable rates, well in a variety of situations: (or size of wheelie container) as volume-based rates and other names) • Private haulers (Lafayette), multiple their usual garbage service and get provide a different way to bill for garbage haulers (Fort Collins) or city systems a bill that is higher for bigger service.
  • Impacts of Pay-As-You-Throw Municipal Solid Waste Collection

    Impacts of Pay-As-You-Throw Municipal Solid Waste Collection

    City of Milwaukee: Impacts of Pay-As-You-Throw Municipal Solid Waste Collection Prepared by Catherine Hall Gail Krumenauer Kevin Luecke Seth Nowak For the City of Milwaukee, Department of Administration, Budget and Management Division Workshop in Public Affairs, Domestic Issues Public Affairs 869 Spring 2009 Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs University of Wisconsin-Madison ©2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System All rights reserved. For additional copies: Publications Office La Follette School of Public Affairs 1225 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706 www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workshops.html [email protected] The Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs is a nonpartisan teaching and research department of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The school takes no stand on policy issues; opinions expressed in these pages reflect the views of the authors. ii Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures...................................................................................... iv Foreword ................................................................................................................. v Acknowledgments.................................................................................................. vi Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2 Research
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    Document 10 Agenda item 8: Report on the implementation of the programme of work approved by the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention at its sixth meeting Rotterdam Convention Bureau meeting, 4-5 June 2014 Report on the implementation of joint activities contained in the 2014- 2015 programme budgets of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions 1. The annex to the present document contains a report prepared by the Secretariat on the implementation of joint activities in the programme budgets for 2014-2015, as approved by the conferences of the parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, in their decisions BC-11/26, RC-6/16 and SC-6/30. 2. The report describes the joint activities of the programme budgets for 2014-2015 that have been implemented as of 28 February 2014. Some activities were carried out in the second half of 2013. These activities have financial implications on staff time only, unless otherwise mentioned. 3. The document also provides the expenditures incurred under the general trust funds (BC, RC and SC Trust Funds) and the voluntary trust funds (BD, RV and SV Trust Funds) in January and February 2014 for the implementation of these activities. Voluntary contributions received by donors over the two-month period for the biennium 2014-2015 are also provided. 4. Similar reports have been prepared on convention-specific activities carried out under the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions 2014-2015 programme budgets. 5. Updated reports will be submitted to the meetings of the conferences of the parties in 2015 for consideration.
  • Chemicals Management and Marine Plastics

    Chemicals Management and Marine Plastics

    our JOSÉ MANUEL BARROSO REACHING SUSTAINABILITY KAREN ELLEMANN TIME TO TACKLE CHEMICALS MAANEE LEE planet BORROWING THE PRESENT The magazine of the United Nations Environment Programme — April 2011 NANCY JACKSON CHEMISTRY AS NATURE DOES IT CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT and marine plastics OUR PLANET CHEMICALS 1 Our Planet, the magazine of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) PO Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (254 20) 762 1234 Fax: (254 20) 762 3927 e-mail: [email protected] To view current and past issues of this publication online, please visit www.unep.org/ourplanet ISSN 1013 - 7394 Director of Publication : Satinder Bindra Editor : Geoffrey Lean Coordinator : Geoff Thompson, Mia Turner Special Contributor : Nick Nuttall Distribution Manager : Manyahleshal Kebede Design : Amina Darani Produced by : UNEP Division of Communications and Public Information Printed by : Progress Press Distributed by : SMI Books The contents of this magazine do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or the editors, nor are they an official record. The designations employed and the presentation do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP concerning the legal status of any country, territory or city or its authority or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. * All dollar ($) amounts refer to US dollars. Cover Photo: © Getty Images UNEP promotes environmentally sound practices globally and in its own activities. This magazine is printed on 100% recycled paper, using vegetable-based inks and other eco-friendly practices. Our distribution policy aims to reduce UNEP’s carbon footprint. 2 OUR PLANET CHEMICALS JOSÉ MANUEL BARROSO : Reaching sustainability page 6 Regulating chemicals can protect health and the environment while enhancing competitiveness and innovation.
  • United Nations Rc

    United Nations Rc

    UNITED NATIONS RC UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.5/25/Add.1 Distr. General 20 April 2011 United Nations Original: English Environment Programme Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade Conference of the Parties Fifth meeting Geneva, 20–24 June 2011 Item 6 of the provisional agenda* Enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions Enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions Addendum Joint activities Note by the Secretariat Introduction 1. Decisions BC.Ex-1/1 of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, RC.Ex-1/1 of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and SC.Ex-1/1 of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (the “omnibus decisions”) were adopted by the conferences of the parties to the three conventions at their simultaneous extraordinary meetings, in February 2010. In section I of those decisions, on joint activities, the conferences of the parties invited various stakeholders to undertake cooperative and coordinated activities to implement decision IX/10 of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, decision RC-4/11 of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention and decision SC-4/34 of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention, hereinafter referred to as the “synergies decisions”.
  • Atlas on Children's Health and the Environment

    Atlas on Children's Health and the Environment

    INHERITING A SUSTAINABLE WORLD? ATLAS ON CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT ON CHILDREN’S HEALTH WORLD? ATLAS INHERITING A SUSTAINABLE CONTACT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AVENUE APPIA 20 1211 GENEVA 27 SWITZERLAND http://www.who.int/phe Atlas on children’s health and the environment ISBN 978 92 4 151177 3 WHO Atlas on children’s health and the environment Inheriting a sustainable world? Atlas on children’s health and the environment ISBN 978-92-4-151177-3 © World Health Organization 2017 Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition”. Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization (http://www.
  • How to Implement Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) a Briefing For

    How to Implement Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) a Briefing For

    23 August 2019 How to implement extended producer responsibility (EPR) A briefing for governments and businesses By: Emma Watkins Susanna Gionfra Funded by Disclaimer: The arguments expressed in this report are solely those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinion of any other party. The report should be cited as follows: E. Watkins and S. Gionfra (2019) How to implement extended producer responsibility (EPR): A briefing for governments and businesses Corresponding author: Emma Watkins Acknowledgements: We thank Xin Chen and Annika Lilliestam of WWF Germany for their inputs and comments during the preparation of this briefing. Cover image: Pexels Free Stock Photos Institute for European Environmental Policy AISBL Brussels Office Rue Joseph II 36-38 1000 Bruxelles Belgium Tel: +32 (0) 2738 7482 Fax: +32 (0) 2732 4004 London Office 11 Belgrave Road IEEP Offices, Floor 3 London, SW1V 1RB Tel: +44 (0) 20 7799 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7799 2600 The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) is an independent not-for-profit institute. IEEP undertakes work for external sponsors in a range of policy areas as well as engaging in our own research programmes. For further information about IEEP, see our website at www.ieep.eu or contact any staff member. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction and context for this briefing .................................................................. 7 2 Introduction to extended
  • Liboiron-Redefining Pollution-11-7-12-First Pages

    Liboiron-Redefining Pollution-11-7-12-First Pages

    Sponsoring Committee: Professor Brett Gary, Chairperson Professor Lisa Gitelman Professor Robin Nagle REDEFINING POLLUTION: PLASTICS IN THE WILD Max Liboiron Program in Media, Culture, and Communication Department of Media, Culture, and Communication Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development New York University 2012 Copyright © 2012 Max Liboiron ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my stellar dissertation committee, Brett Gary, Lisa Gitelman, and Robin Nagle, not only for their time and commitment to my project, and for their willingness to read, reread, edit, discuss, and read again, but also for role modeling the kind of academic I want to be: carefully and thoughtfully brilliant, empathetic, and down to earth. Thank you for supporting all aspects of my life as a young scholar, from professionalization to asking after my family’s health. This dissertation would not have been nearly as fun, satisfying, and challenging to write without the three of you, and I am deeply grateful for your generosity and mentorship. A special thank you to Erica Robles-Anderson, who fulfilled all the roles of a committee member without official acknowledgement or reward. Thank you for teaching me to think sideways and to suss out the shapes of problems. I look forward to our future collaborations. There are many intellectual communities I have had the fortune to be part of that have directly and indirectly shaped my research. My peers and advisors in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication are some of the smartest people I’ve met, and I appreciate the perspectives and reading lists many of you have so graciously extended.
  • Background Note

    Background Note

    Safe Planet: the United Nations Campaign for Responsibility on Hazardous Chemicals and Wastes Background Note Contact Mr. Michael Stanley‐Jones Public Information Officer Joint Services of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) International Environment House 11‐13 chemin des Anémones, Châtelaine Geneva, Switzerland Tel: + 41 22 917 8668 E‐mail: [email protected] 1 Safe Planet: the United Nations Campaign for Responsibility on Hazardous Chemicals and Wastes highlights solutions to the growing problem of harmful substances and hazardous wastes. This ambitious campaign for ensuring the safety of the environment and human health against hazardous chemicals and wastes shows how each of us can take responsibility for keeping our planet safe. Solutions are available through initiatives undertaken by the leading global chemicals and waste management instruments – the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. To raise awareness of these solutions, Safe Planet has invited a group of high‐profile artists and musicians, business leaders, film stars, human rights advocates, scientists and sports heroes to speak out about the increasingly heavy burden chemicals and wastes place on human bodies and the environment. The Safe Planet Supporters come from all corners of the planet. Drawing from their own life experience, they show how all of us can take responsibility to meet the challenge of harmful substances and wastes. Many have pledged to share information about their own chemical body burden to call attention to the need for action. The challenge of eliminating harmful substances and hazardous wastes from the planet is enormous, while the window for taking decisive action is limited and narrowing.
  • Responses to Common Anti-Recycling Arguments

    Responses to Common Anti-Recycling Arguments

    Responses to 10 Common Anti-Recycling Arguments 1. Recycling costs too much. · Well-run recycling programs cost less than landfills and incinerators. · The more people recycle, the cheaper it gets. · Recycling helps families save money, especially in communities with pay-as-you-throw programs. · Recycling generates revenue to help pay for itself, while incineration and landfilling do not. 2. Recycling should pay for itself. · Landfills and incinerators don’t pay for themselves; in fact they cost more than recycling programs. · Recycling creates more than one million U.S. jobs in recycled product manufacturing alone.1 · Hundreds of companies, including Hewlett Packard, Bank of America, and the U.S. Postal Service, have saved millions of dollars through their recycling programs. · Through recycling, the U.S. is saving enough energy to provide electricity for 9 million homes per year.2 3. Recycling causes pollution. · Recycling results in a net reduction in ten major categories of air pollutants and eight major categories of water pollutants.3 · Manufacturing with recycled materials, with very few exceptions, saves energy and water and produces less air and water pollution than manufacturing with virgin materials. · Recycling trucks often generate less pollution than garbage trucks because they do not idle as long at the curb. If you add recycling trucks, you should be able to subtract garbage trucks.4 · By 2005, recycling will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 48 million tons, the equivalent of the amount emitted by 36 million cars.1 4. Recycling doesn't save trees or other natural resources. · 94% of the natural resources America uses are non-renewable (up from 59% in 1900 and 88% in 1945).
  • Pay-As-You-Throw the More You Recycle, the More You Save!

    Pay-As-You-Throw the More You Recycle, the More You Save!

    Pay-As-You-Throw The more you recycle, the more you save! Opinions of Bismarck Residents on Recycling Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Program Produced for: The City of Bismarck, North Dakota Public Works Service Operations Presented by: 2010 Bismarck-Mandan Chamber of Commerce Leadership Team Mary Cooper Brian Fettig Emily McKay Tonya Schlaht March 17, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Bismarck PAYT Survey 6 Conclusion 18 Appendix A – PAYT Recycling Survey 19 Appendix B – PAYT Recycling Survey Comments (Verbatim) 21 2 Executive Summary In September 2009, the City of Bismarck Public Works Service Operations department submitted an application to the Bismarck-Mandan Leadership program for consideration of a field class project surveying Bismarck residents to ascertain their understanding of a volume-based fee structure and determine if they are in favor or disagreement of a volume-based fee structure (also known as Pay-As-You-Throw) for garbage disposal. If this information proves viable, a curbside recycling option could be brought to the commission for approval with the backing of the users. In 2008, UND performed a phone survey to determine the attitudes of Bismarck residents towards recycling. This information moved the City of Bismarck to form a Recycling Task Force. The task force studied recycling issues in Bismarck and made a recommendation to the Board of City Commissioners in April of 2009. The recommendation was that the city should consider curbside recycling with a commercial recycler. The City of Bismarck is considering a volume based fee structure for Bismarck that would reward citizens for recycling if they reduce the volume of garbage they dispose of.